Technically you may be right. But this happens all the time. Just look at the ID people that come through the forums. They are misusing ID this way all the time. They are not exceptions. This is the standard pattern in the church, even if many ID leaders think of ID in different ways. So, perhaps all these churchgoers are wrong, but that is how ID is expressed in the church in many (most?) cases.
This is not what he is saying at all. He is not “handing description of the world” to secular thought. He is not saying that faith and reason do not interact. He is not restating NOMA. That is just a misreading of his point.
Instead, he is saying there is a deep line between theological claims and scientific claims. And I would entirely agree. To say that life is “designed” is, in the context we are talking about, always a theological claim. This claim is strong, certain, and evidentially based. And it is entirely independent of any conclusions that science comes to. Even if science concludes on “undirected” evolution, this is sharply not a theological claim, nor could it ever rightly be. To be clear, both are claims about this world. So it is not that he is ceding descriptions of the world to science. Theology describes our world too!
This capacity to keep two worlds of language and perspective at play at the same time is one of the great strengths of Lutheran though, and something that you are missing entirely in misinterpreting him. Believe what you will, but it does not help to misrepresent others in the process.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I think this is very dismissive of a very important concern. It is a pervasive problem in the church that ID is used exactly in this way to support a dangerous theological outlook. Of course, the misuse of a thing does not negate its proper use. I certainly agree that ID can be handled correctly, in principle, but it is not overreacting to recognize the pervasive theological misuse of this particular movement in the church.
What do you think @JustAnotherLutheran?